Posted on 11/04/2019 9:21:11 AM PST by sickoflibs
On Sunday, the whistleblower’s attorney, Mark Zaid, sent an offer to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA). His client, who is widely believed to be CIA officer Eric Ciaramella, he said, is willing to answer Republican lawmaker’s questions in writing. My colleague, Nick Arama, reported on Zaid’s offer here.
(I guess this confirms that Paul Sperry’s reporting on the identity and the background of the Ukrainian whistleblower was correct.)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) responded to Zaid’s inadequate offer with the following statement:
Written answers will not provide a sufficient opportunity to probe all the relevant facts and cross examine the so-called Whistleblower. You don’t get to ignite an impeachment effort and never account for your actions and role in orchestrating it. We have serious questions about this individual’s political bias and partisan motivations and it seems Mark Zaid and Adam Schiff are attempting to hide these facts from public scrutiny. The recent testimony raised even more concerns about the anonymous whistleblower and our need to hear from them, in person.
Jordan’s response is entirely appropriate. He is well aware that Democrats want to keep the American people from fully understanding just who Eric Ciaramella is.
His past superiors include former CIA Director John Brennan, former National Security adviser Susan Rice, former Vice President Joe Biden and former Trump National Security adviser and outspoken Trump critic H.R. McMaster. If voters learn about his work history, and his close associations in D.C., his credibility will vanish. With the DOJ Inspector General’s report due to be released this week (maybe), and their knowledge that the Barr/Durham probe has turned into a criminal investigation, time is not on the Democrats’ side.
He was also involved in laying the groundwork for the Trump/Russia collusion hoax. Because of Ciaramella’s experience running the Ukraine desk at the NSC, he worked with Ukrainian-American Alexandra Chalupa, a former DNC contractor, and Hillary supporter. Chalupa’s work digging up dirt on Paul Manafort forced him to resign from the Trump campaign manager and signaled the start of his legal problems and was instrumental in advancing the narrative that the Trump campaign was working with the Russians to win the 2016 election.
For a more detailed look at Ciaramella, please see my recent post, “Suddenly, Coincidences Involving The Whistleblower Abound.”
Leading the impeachment inquiry is Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. He has now decreed that he whistleblower’s testimony is completely unnecessary because it has been “corroborated” by three high-ranking intelligence community officials. As are most of Schiff’s statements, this is false. More accurately, the whistleblower’s opinion/personal interpretation of the July 25th conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky matches the opinions/personal interpretations of three high-ranking intelligence community officials.
In early October, before Schiff closed the door entirely on having the whistleblower testify in person before his committee, the Wall Street Journal, citing “people who are familiar with the matter,” reported that the whistleblower really didn’t feel comfortable about testifying before Congress in person. His attorneys asked lawmakers if their client might instead answer questions in writing.
The source said the whistleblower’s attorneys fear that Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee would leak their client’s identity. Please.
Several ideas were tossed around about how to protect the whistleblower’s anonymity such as having him “appear remotely and using technology like voice modulation software to conceal his identity.”
None of that matters any longer.
Nothing short of Eric Ciaramella’s personal testimony before the House Intelligence Committee will do. And the rules must allow Republican lawmakers to cross-examine him and ask questions of their own.
It’s obvious to all that the impeachment inquiry is based on a political dirty trick. And we no longer need to concern ourselves with maintaining the whistleblower’s anonymity. Ciaramella must answer questions in front of the American people and face the President whom he is accusing.
Why? So he/she can take the questions to a bunch of lawyers for them to answer the questions? No. Answer in front of people, if you dare, coward.
What happened to the “people need to know” mantra of democrats.
Very interesting. In today’s world No one wants to be responsible for their actions.
6th Amendment to the Constitution.
Right to face your accuser.
Right to cross-examine.
Right to know your accuser.
End of story.
This whole charade is surreal. Only John Durham can throw cold water on the out of control mob.
Nothing will focus these people in the impeachment crowded room like the loud noise that a Russia fiasco indictment would represent. A gunshot as it were.
Love this comment and it should be repeated often
Technically that applies only to trials. We aren’t at the trial stage of impeachment proceedings yet, as the impeachment trial in front of the Senate has not started yet. If this were a regular criminal court case it would still be in the stage of determining whether there is enough evidence to indict the accused at all. If during the Senate trial the Dems still refuse to release the whistleblower’s identity then yes that is a Constitutional crisis. Until then they have more leeway.
By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Sunday, September 22, 2019
Mark S. Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer in Washington and a Trump critic on Twitter, has joined the legal team representing the intelligence community whistleblower who is targeting President Trump.
The legal reinforcement in a media-political frenzy not seen since the 2017 Trump-Russia brouhaha signals a tough battle ahead for the White House and the Justice Department.
Mr. Zaid’s law partner, Bradley P. Moss, is counterattacking conservatives who have vilified the unidentified whistleblower. He called the Trump supporters “human excrement posing as human beings.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.